Biden Administration Withhold $150 Million of Ukraine Aid Until Ukraine Government Reform – Exact Process Democrats Impeached Trump For


Posted originally on the conservative tree house April 12, 2021 | Sundance | 142 Comments

Yes, as you read the following report from OANN, you would not be mistaken to identify the JoeBama administration is now doing exactly the same thing President Trump was accused of, wrongfully, which led to the a ridiculous impeachment effort.

Meanwhile Russian President Vladimir Putin is laughing hysterically….

OANN – Joe Biden is withholding military aid from Ukraine that had already been approved by Congress in the face of Russian military maneuvers at its borders.

Biden will reportedly provide only $125 million to Ukraine this year, although Congress has already approved a $275 million package. White House officials said $150 million of that aid will be withheld until Ukraine conducts the reforms that Biden is asking for. (read more)

Russia will likely take military action against Ukraine.  NATO will once again clucth their proverbial pearls, and, quite frankly, no-one will care.  Biden’s woke foreign policy is Obama’s intentionally weak foreign policy.  The Obama people behind JoeBama will find a way to engage in some kind of war or military action as another purposeful distraction from the domestic agenda they are carrying out.

Biden’s Gun Grab


Posted originally on GrrrGraphics.com APR 10, 2021 AT 11:18 AM

Shall NOT be Infringed

China Joe Biden’s pen has been busy lately. He has signed new Executive Orders that will begin to dismantle our Second Amendment.

Sleepy Joe said it himself. He’s doing it to ‘keep the American people safe.’ How will we be safer if we can’t defend ourselves? Oh, I almost forgot. Biden’s big government will do that for us. Just like Stalin and Pol Pot did when they confiscated the guns in their countries.

Socialists always want the guns first—it then makes it easier for them to take everything else. Including our very lives.

Does anyone really think such a totalitarian police state can’t happen here? It has already begun. Traitorous security arms such as the BATF or the FBI can show up at your door at 4 a.m. without a warrant and cart you away for illegally owning a gun for whatever reason determined by a capricious state. Maybe you’ll be carted away to a FEMA camp and disappear. That dark future is sure to come to patriots who don’t resist soon enough.

We must resit RIGHT NOW. Big Government doesn’t like being out-gunned. Too bad!

Biden actually said “No amendment to the Constitution is absolute.” Really, Joe? Does that include the 13th Amendment? Apparently so since he wants us all to become slaves to his big globalist government. Once our rights are removed they won’t come back without another Civil War.

Did Joe just declare one?

Don’t let a demented old fool such as Biden determine whether or not you can own a firearm. Remember, his son Hunter obtained a .38 pistol by lying on his application.

Nothing happened. Those who want to issue laws and orders to tell you what to do aren’t subject to their own dictates.

Most likely it’s Bolshevik Barack who is pulling Biden’s strings. Obama wants Joe to go after us MAGA people, whom he labeled ‘bitter clingers.”

Bitterly cling tight to your firearms. Ignore Joe’s orders of infringement.

—Ben Garrison

Corporations, Specifically Multinationals, Hate Capitalism – Understand That Point and Things Make Sense


Posted originally on the conservation tree house April 11, 2021 | Sundance | 192 Comments

Boy howdy is there a disconnect amid the outlook of most ‘conservatives’ when it comes to corporations and capitalism.   This tweet is a great place to recognize the distinction between the objectives of multinational corporations and their hatred of capitalism.

First, they were not “corporations” on the call, that is not an accurate description.  The assembly was a group of “multinationals” discussing their objectives, goals and outlooks on politics.  There is a difference between an ordinary corporation and a multinational corporation.  Multinationals hate capitalism.

When I say most multinational corporations hate capitalism many people look confused.

Let me help by sharing a short video that explains why:

The first myth busted in that video explains why corporations do not like capitalism.  That’s why Big Tech is also against capitalism.

Multinationals want control; some call that corporatism…. but the names are moot.  Multinationals want control, and capitalism does not allow them control; that is why multinationals do not want capitalism.  Multinationals use lobbyists to generate regulations that stall competition.

Multinationals do not want competition; they are, by nature of their interest, anti-capitalists.

This misunderstanding is everywhere.

Sunday Talks, John Ratcliffe Discusses Severe Political Compromise Within U.S. Intelligence Community


Posted originally on the conservative tree house April 11, 2021 | Sundance | 181 Comments

Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the issues with Hunter Biden’s laptop and the severity of political compromise within the U.S. intelligence apparatus.  Ratcliffe notes how politicized the intelligence community and national security have become specifically in defense of lies being perpetrated by those behind the Biden administration.

Misinformation and disinformation is rampant as the Nat Sec community and Intel Community use their political ideology to advance false assertions.  Good segment, WATCH:

Corporate MSM, the mouthpieces for Wall Street and the deep state, including Fox News, will do everything possible to stop this type of conversation.

Sunday Talks, Jim Jordan Discusses His Border Visit and Being Forbidden From Documenting Crisis – ANALYSIS: A Part of The Crisis Story Everyone is Missing


Posted originally on the conservative tree house April 11, 2021 | Sundance | 203 Comments

Ohio Representative Jim Jordan appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss his visit to the U.S-Mexico border and what he personally witnessed.  Jim Jordan outlines how the JoeBama administration is blocking people from documenting the scale of the crisis and concludes the resulting influx is exactly what the administration wants.

ANALYSIS –  Many people (conservative media and politicians specifically) are misinterpreting the removal of the Biden administration’s Southern Border coordinator, Roberta Jacobson, from office.  Jacobson was not removed from her position for being ineffective, her removal was announced because her goal was successfully accomplished.  [It is frustrating to read THIS STUFF]

Let me be clear… Roberta Jacobson was put into position in January by those in control of the Biden administration specifically to coordinate this mass migration influx.  Her mission was to create the crisis, not to prevent it.  She was put into place to trigger the mass migration.  How do we know this?….

When Roberta Jacobson was Ambassador to Mexico she was working against the policy of the Trump administration.  She was running a covert effort to pipeline Central American immigrants through Mexico into the United States.  Yes, Roberta Jacobson was part of the trafficking network; that is why she was removed from her position in March 2018…  President Trump found out Roberta Jacobson was working with far-left immigration groups against his administration.

When Trump eventually found out what Jacobson was doing in Mexico, he quickly dispatched Jared Kushner to meet with Mexican officials and outline that Jacobson did not represent President Trump and she was fired.  [Remember, this was before AMLO was elected]

FLASHBACK MARCH 2018 –  Jared Kushner was in Mexico Wednesday to repair relations with the United States’ southern neighbor and key trading partner after a tense phone call between Presidents Donald Trump and Enrique Pena Nieto ended recently with the Mexican leader’s canceling a planned visit to America.

But Kushner, Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law who had no government or diplomatic experience before taking office …  has been criticized for not including the outgoing U.S. ambassador in his meetings.

[…] After Wednesday’s meetings, however, it appeared there had been little progress in rescheduling. Mexican officials say both sides agreed that a future meeting will depend on how much progress is made on other issues, including NAFTA, migration, economic cooperation, and security, which would include Trump’s proposal for a border wall.

[…] U.S. Ambassador Roberta Jacobson, a 30-year veteran of U.S.-Latin America policy and top diplomat who has announced her resignation, was not in either of Kushner’s meetings with Videgaray or Pena Nieto, according to a statement and photos released by the Mexican government. She was also not even invited, according to The New York Times. .. (read more)

It must be remembered the spring of 2018 was when President Trump was pushing forward with the USMCA trade agreement to replace NAFTA and the former Mexican government was pushing back hard against it.  President Trump announced he would initiate economic leverage against Mexico including tariffs if they did not comply with closing the NAFTA loopholes and supporting a new trade deal.

Videgaray and Nieto were fighting against President Trump and making threats to flood the U.S. with illegal aliens.  In the background Ambassador Jacobson was working as an inside agent to assist Mexico against President Trump.  Part of that effort by Ms. Jacobson was to organize and trigger the migrant caravan wave that happened in the fall of 2018.

The migrant caravan held a dual purpose of benefit for Ambassador Jacobson and the Mexican government:

(1) The caravan of immigrants was a coordinated ideological effort of the far-left, the open border community.

(2) The caravan of immigrants and the crisis they carried would be used as leverage by Mexican officials against Trump policy in the economic trade negotiations.

♦ In August of 2017 President Trump and Commerce Secretary Ross were discussing their trade efforts within NAFTA and renegotiation with Mexico/Canada on a trilateral basis. However, the U.S. administration said if it doesn’t work, they’d scrap the 3-way NAFTA deal and go one-on-one with individual bilateral agreements.

In response, Mexican Economic Minister Ildefonso Guajardo threatened to flood the U.S. with South American illegal aliens, criminals and gang members as leverage:

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexico could pull back on cooperation in migration and security matters if the United States walks away from talks to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Mexican economy minister said in a newspaper report published on Thursday.

“If they do not treat [us] well commercially, they should not expect us to treat them well by containing the migration that comes from other regions of the world and crosses Mexico,” Guajardo said. “Or they should not expect to be treated well in collaboration with security issues in the region.” (LINK)

However, Mexican Minister Ildefonso Guarjardo’s threat was mild compared to a threat in January 2017, when another Mexican official promised to flood the U.S. with South American drugs and gang violence:

♦ In a stunning segment on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN broadcast January 29th, 2017, Mexico’s former foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda, states the Mexican government was willing to counter U.S. President Donald Trump policy by unleashing drug cartels upon the U.S. border.

Watch, and more importantly LISTEN, to his words at 02:10 below (Prompted):

This was the most politically explosive admission by the Mexican government in the past decade. Even Fareed Zakaria realized what was being threatened and quickly attempted to redirect the conversation.

Mr. Castaneda was openly admitting a willingness to promote drug trafficking. Additionally, Jorge Castaneda is so proud of the threat, he posted a video of the discussion on his own YouTube page.

This was the background battle in 2017.  Mexican officials were working with U.S. State Department officials and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to block President Trump from enforcing immigration limits, border security, building a wall and then proceeding to get rid of NAFTA.  The entire diplomatic corps, and Wall Street group which funds them, were trying to stop President Trump’s initiative.

Trump was waging this economic confrontation against Mexico at the same time he was dealing with North Korea nukes, moving trade policy in Southeast Asia, initiating tariffs against China and coordinating energy independence with peace in the middle-east.  There was so much going on that almost no-one was paying attention to the issues in Mexico…. UNTIL the fall of 2018 when the Central American caravans hit the headlines.

Roberta Jacobson had coordinated the caravans and was fired by Trump in the spring of 2018.  So when Biden hired Jacobson to be the border coordinator in January 2021 for 100 days (note the timeline was not accidental) she was installed specifically to trigger this massive influx of illegal aliens; which is an exact duplication of what she did in 2018 as Ambassador to Mexico.

Jacobson was always going to leave the administration after her successful mission.  It was planned this way.  The only reason she is leaving a little earlier is because she accomplished her task ahead of schedule.  She is leaving early because she did better than JoeBama expected.

Hopefully that clears up the confusion.

An Insiders Perspective on President Trump’s Claims of Election Fraud From Legal Counsel John Eastman


Posted originally on the conservative tree house April 10, 2021 | Sundance | 240 Comments

“What Really Happened? An Insider’s Perspective on Representing the President and Claims of Election Fraud” – an interview with Professor John Eastman, scholar of Constitutional law and Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute, moderated by Amber Athey, Washington Editor of Spectator USA and Tony Blankley Senior Fellow with Steamboat Institute:

Professor John Eastman was retained as legal counsel by President Trump following the 2020 election to examine possible fraudulent activities that could have influenced the outcome of the election. In this interview, Professor Eastman describes what it was like to be in the Oval Office with President Trump and Vice President Pence during those tense post-election weeks with the election outcome hanging in the balance.

.

Professor Eastman also explains what he learned about possible election improprieties and what facts are available for the general public to know and to gain a better understanding of what really happened.

Steamboat Institute is proud to present this interview with the hope that it will lead to a better understanding of what really happened in the 2020 election and how we, as citizens responsible for defending our republic, can safeguard the integrity of our electoral process.

Narrow Victory, Supreme Court Blocks California COVID Compliance Ministry From Stopping In-Home Bible Study


Posted originally on the conservative tree house April 10, 2021 | Sundance | 148 Comments

In a narrow 5-4 ruling the Supreme Court has blocked California from stopping in-home bible study groups from their religious assembly.  Chief Justice Roberts joined the three leftist judges Kagan, Bryer and Sotomayor.   [pdf link here] Apparently the first amendment barely survived this visit by the high court.

♦ Amendment 1  – Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

(SCOTUS BLOG) – […] In an unsigned opinion, the majority wrote that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s failure to put California’s COVID restrictions on hold was “erroneous.” The Supreme Court’s decisions in earlier challenges to COVID-related restrictions have, the justices wrote, “made several points clear.” Among other things, the majority stressed, government regulations are subject to heightened scrutiny whenever they treat any secular activity more favorably than religious activity; it doesn’t matter that the state also treats some secular businesses or activities poorly. Moreover, the majority added, a case may remain a live controversy even if the government changes the policy – particularly when, as here, “officials with a track record of ‘moving the goalposts’ retain authority to reinstate those heightened restrictions at any time.”

In her dissent, Kagan contended that the First Amendment “requires that a State treat religious conduct as well as the State treats comparable secular conduct.” That, she wrote, is what California has done, by adopting “a blanket restriction on at-home gatherings of all kinds.” (read more)

Another Tripwire Crossed – Pentagon Orders Updated Screening of Military to Identify “Extremist” Outlooks in Preparation for What is to Come…


Posted originally on the conservative tree house April 9, 2021 | Sundance | 84 Comments

Let me be clear…. I fully expect to see the standing U.S. military deployed against any state who stands up against unconstitutional federal demands. I have made this assertion since the jaw-dropping revelations about the Pentagon during the first impeachment effort in August 2019 and the lack of leadership from the military in removing Lt. Col Alexander Vindman from his compromised position.

♦ WHAT: As I look forward the likely origination point for military deployment will be federal COVID mandates, though it could also be state election issues.  ♦ HOW: The hardline leftists are weaponizing the military for political benefit.  ♦ WHEN: As a result of severe federal government intrusion it is only a matter of time before states start to rebel against federal COVID demands. That, in my opinion, will be the inflection point and posse comitatus will be suspended.

The majority of the U.S. military rank and file are patriots; America-first nationalists with a patriotic outlook toward the United States as a constitutional republic.  The majority of the military also come from red states.  This is an identified risk to the Obama objective of fundamental change.  Additionally, thanks in large part to a purge during the Obama era, the majority of the flag officers are not in alignment with the rank and file.   This sets the stage for a problem….

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Friday ordered new steps to tackle the threat posed by extremism in the ranks of the military, including updated screening questionnaires for recruits, a review of the department’s definition of extremism and efforts to prevent veterans from being drawn into violent movements.

The move follows a 60-day stand-down across the armed services that Austin ordered to allow commanders and troops in every unit to discuss how to confront the problem of white supremacist or other extremist ideology within the military. The Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump thrust the issue into the spotlight, as some of the mob were former or current members of the military with links to ultra-rightwing groups.

In a memo Friday to top officials and commanders, Austin said the department was still reviewing the results of the stand-down but he had decided to move ahead with “several immediate steps.”

Under Austin’s instruction, the Pentagon’s top lawyer and other officials will review and update the department’s definition of “prohibited extremist activities” for all service members. Critics have said the Pentagon needs to take into account how extremism has evolved in the digital era, and how some adherents engage in more loosely formed networks.

The secretary also called for updated screening questionnaires for potential recruits to gather information about current or previous extremist behavior ”to ensure that only the best qualified recruits are selected for the services,” according to the memo. (read more)

It is well known and accepted that most of the rank and file military come from Red States, and/or the Southern U.S. region.   This has been a reality in the military for as long as I can remember.   Again, this is a problem if the government is going to weaponize the military against the citizens.  Hence, they need to quantify the issue in advance.

[HISTORIC NOTE:  This is not the first time the Pentagon has undertaken such an assessment.  In the aftermath of the Chinese regular army refusing to turn their fire on the protesting students at Tienanmen Square (remember, the Mongolian divisions were called in); the world noticed.  The U.S. Pentagon did a similar internal assessment.]

♦ My prior warning with the examples and citations of data to back-up my prediction are HERE and repeated below:

Considering the specific examples over the past few years, I would argue the Democrats are positioning for use of the military in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act -or- by an expressed act of congress.

Following the evidence to its logical conclusion is simple.  The political apparatus of the DC state has framed a fraudulent narrative that “insurrection” against the federal government is an ongoing possibility.

Toward that end the U.S. military national guard troops have been sent to Washington DC indefinitely (current deployment extended through May).

If we consider there is a reasonable argument now surfacing about states choosing to nullify federal laws, it is not a stretch to see the insurrection narrative as a proactive assertion to support the deployment of active military against any state who would be non-compliant.

Would this violate the Posse Comitatus Act? Quite possibly, yes; it would depend on whether congress passed an expressed act authorizing military troops against specific state action.

When we consider that most of the constitutional checks and balances have been deconstructed or usurped by hardline leftist action; including the weaponization of the intelligence community, and specifically the FBI as a federal law enforcement agency; we are left to recognize that any Posse Comitatus violation would likely be supported by a leftist and aligned media arguing that the military is needed in order to stop a rebellion of states.

If my suspicions/predictions are correct, this would explain exactly why there has been a recent uptick in the visual politicization of the military; including empirical examples of emboldened U.S. military leadership openly engaged in domestic political advocacy against Tucker Carlson.

The marching of the U.S. military through the Capitol building to the offices of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene would be another orchestrated optic sending the same political message.

These are not examples of the military “woke” community advancing political correctness, instead these are examples of advanced politicization of the military (in an open context) in preparation for domestic political use.   The “insurrection narrative” is then considered a seed planted to blossom later in support of the overall agenda.

One of the data-points highlighting future intent was clearly visible and seemingly overlooked by almost all media.  It happened when Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman first became a political whistle-blower against the office of President Trump.

It was not the details of the Vindman accusation that stood out, though that was the aspect the media focused on.  What was more concerning was the lack of action by the Pentagon after Vindman compromised his position as an advisor to the commander in chief.

2019 – When we consider that Lt. Col. Vindman was carrying out what he believed to be his role; and when you overlay his military purpose; and when we accept Vindman was assisting CIA agent Eric Ciaramella in constructing his dossier to remove President Trump; and when we stand back and look at the aggregate interests involved, including Vindman’s divided loyalties toward a foreign power; and when we consider there was ZERO push-back from the ranks of military leadership, specifically the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and when you accept Vindman was simply allowed to return to his post inside the White House – where he remains today; well, the alarming aspect increases in direct proportion to the definition of the word: “coup”.

I would encourage all readers to think long and hard those factual data-points.

Despite his admitted usurpation of President Trump policy, Vindman was sent back to his post in the NSC with the full support of the United States Department of Defense.

The onus of action to remove Vindman from the NSC did not lay at the feet of the White House and National Security advisor Robert O’Brien; upon whose action the removal of Vindman could be positioned as political.  The necessary obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman resides purposefully with the Dept. of Defense.

The Pentagon could easily withdraw Vindman from his position at the National Security Council; yet, it does not…. and it has not.   WHY?

There is a code within the military whereby you never put your leadership into a position of compromise; ie. “never compromise your leadership”.

In this example, President Trump cannot remove Vindman from the White House NSC advisory group due to political ramifications and appearances… The Joint Chiefs certainly recognize this issue; it is the very type of compromise they are trained to remove.  Yet they do nothing to remove the compromise.  They do nothing to assist.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was the majority (#1) source for the material CIA operative Eric Ciaramella used in a collaborative effort to remove President Trump from office.  Let me make this implication crystal clear:

The United States Military appears to be collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.

The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication. The Secretary of Defense has done nothing to remove the conflict that Vindman represents within the National Security Council.  The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of an agenda toward the removal of President Trump.

This is not a complex issue.

No-one in the foreign policy group is going to take any advice or opinion from Vindman.  No-one is going to allow him to engage in material of a sensitive or confidential nature.  Lt. Col. Vindman has compromised himself; and therefore eliminated any usefulness to his prior assignment.  Yet his command does nothing? (more)

That was the alarming lack of action from the Pentagon everyone seemed to overlook.  Why did senior military leadership not remove Vindman from his post at the White House once he clearly compromised his ability to carry out his duty?  Their lack of action was stunning when you consider their primary obligation.

Fast forward to 2021 and now a very political military officer, General Russel Honore’, is appointed by Nancy Pelosi to be in charge of the military deployment around Washington DC.  When you consider the political ramifications of the military supporting a false narrative, this is more than just another data-point.  Then the military openly attacked the position of Tucker Carlson based entirely on political ideology.

The increased frequency of the military being politicized is what leads me to believe this phase is all just a public relations pre-positioning.  I fully expect to see the standing U.S. military deployed against any state who stands up against unconstitutional federal demands… the likely origination point will be federal COVID mandates.

The leftists are weaponizing COVID mandates for a political agenda.  It is only a matter of time before states start to rebel against federal COVID demands.  That, in my opinion, will be the inflection point.  That will be when the U.S. military is held as a compliance activation against any rebellious state.  It could be another issue that activates this triggering of the military (ex. state election laws), but as it stands right now federal COVID compliance seems the most likely trigger.

Bottom line… The American electorate are being positioned to accept deployment of the U.S. military against U.S. citizens, under the guise of insurrection and/or a public threat.  That is why we are seeing so much willful politicization of the military.

If you live in a region or state that values individual liberty and/or freedom, you are likely in a location that leftists consider a risk to their ability to execute their agenda.  You are likely right now being defined as a ‘dissident’, or possibly a “domestic terrorist.”  As a result, get ready to see this type of activity in your neighborhood.

Russian Troops Moving to Ukrainian Border


Armstrong Economics Blog/Russia Re-Posted Apr 9, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

Biden Declares the Constitution is NOT Absolute Ensuring Revolution


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Apr 9, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

Biden has targeted guns with the end goal to disarm America entirely. He has stated: “No amendment to the Constitution is absolute.” The real objective is to compel everyone to register every gun so they can enter your house without a warrant to seize your weapons. What they are doing is dripping out their real objective, one tiny drop at a time. The Biden Administration is now also urging the Supreme Court to let police bust into your home and seize guns without a warrant. The end game is to disarm Americans completely in hopes of preventing a revolution when they even end the right to vote in any meaningful way as in Europe.

The Fourth Amendment declares,

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Otis-James

James Otis (1725-1783)

The entire American Revolution was born over illegal searches by the king. It is very sad that Biden and the Democrats have no respect for the Constitution whatsoever. John Adams, Second President, listened to the four-hour speech of the defense lawyer James Otis (1725-1783) who argued against the king’s Writs of Assistance in February 1761 that allowed the government to arbitrarily search whatever they suspected for any reason. History repeats. This is precisely what the Democrats are arguing before the Supreme Court to eliminate the Fourth Amendment. This is devastating to human rights and the very idea of a free society of “We the People.” It is a terrible day we face and this is why I say republics are the worst form of government. Biden never said anything about these objectives. He gets people to vote for him on a false agenda, no different than a fund manager given a false report claiming he made 300% last year when he really lost 50%. This is outright FRAUD!

Otis argued that the Writs of Assistance which required no probable cause placed “the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” This was in February 1761, in Boston, and the famous debate in which it occurred was perhaps the most prominent event, which inaugurated the resistance of the colonies to the oppressions of the mother country. “Then and there,” said John Adams, “then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there, the child Independence was born.” History indeed repeats. The tyranny of the Biden Administration is unfolding as was the case under King George III.

Here are a few excerpts from that famous speech of James Otis that so moved John Adams and inspired the birth of the American Revolution.

I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book…  

The writ prayed for in this petition, being general, is illegal. It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer. I say I admit that special Writs of Assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath. But I deny that the writ now prayed for can be granted…

In the first place, the writ is universal, being directed “to all and singular justices, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and subjects”; so that, in short, it is directed to every subject in the King’s dominions. Everyone with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder any one within the realm.   In the next place, it is perpetual; there is no return. A man is accountable to no person for his doings. Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of the Archangel shall excite different emotions in his soul. In the third place, a person with this writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses, shops, etc., at will, and command all to assist him. Fourthly, by this writ not only deputies, etc., but even their menial servants, are allowed to lord it over us…  

One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient. 

Let me make something  VERY clear. Part of the Build Back Better agenda from the World Economic Forum is to eliminate all democratic rights. To enter your home without a warrant means they do not have to claim there is probable cause that you even have a weapon. That means every home can be violently searched at will. The Biden Administration is attacking every amendment head-on, from free speech, religion (e.g., locking down churches), to the Second Amendment right now. They already have obliterated Due Process of Law and want to repeal the Fourth Amendment effectively. If you disarm Americans, then there is also no reason for the police to be armed, as is the case in London.

He states to justify this order: “Every day in this country, 360 people are shot. Every single day 106 of them die.” On average, there are 16,438 car crashes per day in the US. In 2016, 37,416 people died in car crashes, which is 102.6 people per day die. So should Biden issue an executive order outlawing all cars?

The Democrats are systematically altering the entire country and overturning the Constitution, which stands in their way of Marxism. The Democrats have no mandate. They hold power by a slim 50.4%. There was certainly no mandate in the outcome of the last election that justifies anything they are doing of this magnitude. The November 2020 election simply confirmed that the US remains split precisely down the middle, 50-50. This has been the case really for at least 20 years, ever since the deadlock of Al Gore and George W. Bush. If the 2020 election meant anything at all, it once again just confirmed that the nation is trapped with irreconcilable differences, and like a marriage, the only possible solution is DIVORCE. That means revolution!